Quote Originally Posted by MeinPanzer
The simple answer is that we don't know on either count, and no comparison can really be made between the cheapness and effectiveness of, say, a T&Y linothorax versus a quilted T&Y, for instance. However, it was (obviously) cheaper and more flexible than metal armour.
My God, sir! Admit that you and the EB team have a serious disagreement at a very fundamental level. The team that I work with are no conjurers and they do not tend to conjecture unless they are reliably certain of their basic facts. That you do not hold the same opinion does not make us unhistorical, unless you can raise suitable criticisms of our technique. Your exacting standards would ruin most historians working in this period and would reduce the writings on this era to a few pages of solid facts - you are Hume in a library with a torch, burning our history and our thought.

We feel reliable with introducing a quilted/padded armour on a small minority of our units in the east, as we see a continuation between pre- and post-period padded armour both in textual form and in archaelogical evidence. We have given evidence to this effect. You judge our interpretation unhistorical, yet, given your certainty, you offer no evidence, except your certainty, that our process is wrong. You are, in my opinion, a blight on honest discussion and on the historical process, and I would suggest that your time would be better spent on projects that you have some say over rather than continuing your belligerent campaign against us.

That is not to say that your discussions and posts have not been informative, but there comes a point where your criticisms, as here, no longer are directed against the evidence but are drawn against the very basis of our project, and the very historians who support. You may call it unhistoric, but I shall tell you that all the historians on the EB team I hold in the deepest respect for their knowledge and for their integrity.

Lastly, your understanding, it seems to me, of Nietzsche is primitive at best. You do realise that Nietzsche never claimed to be a portrayer of truth, he asked for a critical ontology, the question was not "what is true?", but rather "what will help us to live?" Furthermore, you took my comparison between the Christian and Nietzsche far further than it was designed to go, distorting my original intent without, ironically, meeting my particular criticism of you. Ironic because my example was an example of someone answering another by not responding to their criticism but rather bypassing it and in doing so attempting to give the impression of refutation without actually refuting the opposing argument. I refered of course to the work of F. Copleston, Friedrich Nietzsche: Philosopher of Culture, which is quite the most intellectually dishonest book I have ever read, if anyone cares to inquire into its contents.

Foot